anonymous
  • anonymous
Logaritm Question!!!
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
chestercat
  • chestercat
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
Find a relation between x and y that does NOT involve logarithms: log x + log y = log (x+ y)
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Can we assume it's a log of base 10?
anonymous
  • anonymous
yes i think so

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
logx + log y is never log(x+y) it seems... it is log(xy)
anonymous
  • anonymous
do you want the answer?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
I suppose we could exponentiate both sides.. \[\huge 10^{(\log x + \log y)}=10^{\log(x+y)}\] Using rules of exponents we can split up the left side like this: \[\huge 10^{\log x}*10^{\log y}=10^{\log(x+y)}\] Recognizing that log base 10, and the exponentiation base 10 are inverse operations of one another, they essentially "cancel out". Giving us: \[\huge xy=(x+y)\] \[\huge y=\frac{x}{x-1}\]
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Something like that maybe? :o
anonymous
  • anonymous
@zepdrix Oooh, sexy!
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
lol :3
anonymous
  • anonymous
@zeptr yes thats the answer !!!
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Oh cool. :)
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Were you just testing us or something? :D lol Knew the answer the whole time huh? XD
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
@AERONIK , it seems that logx+logy=log(x+y) sometimes. I wouldn't say NEVER. Obviously it doesn't match the rule for logs that we had in mind. But if you plug in y=2, x=2 into the original equation, that should work out ok as one solution :D Since 2+2 is the same as 2*2
anonymous
  • anonymous
no i had the answers at the back of book but i have no idea how to do it... i still dont get the logic though...
anonymous
  • anonymous
so it is not an identity and just a function you say ?
anonymous
  • anonymous
yeh just a random equation
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Yah it appears it wasn't testing you on whether or not you knew your log identities, they just wanted to see a relationship between x and y. Interesting problem :O
anonymous
  • anonymous
and one more thing in your proof you have assumed the given statement to be correct, can you please give a formal proof for te same?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
what now? :o
anonymous
  • anonymous
and is it log to the base 10 or log to the base e ?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
For this problem, we have to assume that they are ALL the same base. Otherwise it won't work out the same. If they're a different base, let's say A, then we exponentiate, writing each side with a base A (regardless of what A might be) and it will work out the same! :D
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
Different than 10 i mean*
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh ok. sorry ..
anonymous
  • anonymous
10 logx ∗10 logy =10 log(x+y) Recognizing that log base 10, and the exponentiation base 10 are inverse operations of one another, they essentially "cancel out". HOW DID YOU DO THIS STEP... CAN YOU SHOW ME? PLEASE
anonymous
  • anonymous
by defination if y=log x to the base a, then x is nothing but a^y, just use this and you can prove the identity.
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
\[\large \arcsin( \sin x)=x\]\[\huge e^{\ln x}=x\] Yah this is true of any function and it's inverse :D Remember it in trig with the inverse functions?
anonymous
  • anonymous
no ...can you do a proof for it please?
zepdrix
  • zepdrix
|dw:1353225574033:dw| Hmmm this might be a little confusing.. I drew a lot of arrows :| lemme know if it makes some sense.
anonymous
  • anonymous
i get it ...thanks so much

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.